Erratum

Abstract

Journal of the Peripheral Nervous SystemVolume 19, Issue 1 p. 50-50 ErratumFree Access Erratum This article corrects the following: The development of a normalization method for comparing nerve regeneration effectiveness among different graft types Wei Chang, Jeffrey DeVince, Gabriella Green, Munish Bhupendra Shah, Michael S. Johns, Yan Meng, Xiaojun Yu, Volume 18Issue 4Journal of the Peripheral Nervous System pages: 297-305 First Published online: December 12, 2013 First published: 06 March 2014 https://doi.org/10.1111/jns5.12052AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat It was found that Figures 1-5 from Chang et al. (2013) are incorrect. The figure captions are correct. This erratum replaces the figures published in the issue: Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The graph of nerve conduction velocity (NCV) vs. recovery time for autografts, separated by gap length. There are two groups: 10-mm gap length and 15-mm gap length. These groups differ significantly in NCV results (p < 0.01). The initial trend and sufficient collection of data points made NCV a candidate for the new normalization method. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Graph of the normalization function along with the data points used to derive it. It is clear that the best-fit lines for both gap lengths are exactly the same. The 12-mm autograft data is not significantly different from the 10-mm and 15-mm data (p > 0.05). This indicates that the normalization function successfully normalized the data. Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Comparison of relative regeneration ratio (RRR) values vs. length of study of longitudinally oriented chitosan conduits with and without electrical stimulation as well as longitudinally oriented collagen chitosan conduits with and without omentum wrapping. Within dashed lines indicate insignificant compared to the autograft. Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Comparison of relative regeneration ratio (RRR) values vs. length of study. This graph compares the effect of longitudinally oriented microchannels against randomly oriented microchannels. Within dashed lines indicate insignificant compared to the autograft. Figure 5Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Comparison of relative regeneration ratio (RRR) values vs. length of study for various conduits. Within dashed lines indicate insignificant compared to the autograft. We apologize for this error. Reference Chang W, DeVince J, Green G, Shah MB, Johns MS, Meng Y, Yu X (2013). The development of a normalization method for comparing nerve regeneration effectiveness among different graft types. J Peripher Nerv Syst 18: 297– 305. Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar Volume19, Issue1March 2014Pages 50-50 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation